We're at the peak of the annual college sports frenzy, with football bowl games wrapping up, and NCAA basketball getting underway. So, this month I'm turning over the Guest Spot to Gordon Gee, Chancellor at Vanderbilt University, which recently announced plans to eliminate its athletics department and reorganize its sports programs to bring them back into line with other campus activities.

What does this topic have to do with Lawson? Well, some things are bigger than Lawson. Those of you who know me personally know that I'm an ardent believer in higher education. And, yes, I like sports too. I just think that the current state of college sports is a mess, and needs to be fixed. Chancellor Gee has a plan which he kindly agreed that I could publish (this opinion piece previously appeared in the September 21, 2003 Washington Post).

1. Guest Spot: My Plan to Put the College Back in College Sports
By Gordon Gee, Chancellor, Vanderbilt University

I like to win. I also like to sleep at night. But after 23 years leading universities, I find it increasingly hard to do both.

This has been the most ignominious year in recent memory for college sports. We've seen coaches behaving badly, academic fraud, graft, possibly even murder. Clearly, the system is broken, and fixing it will require more than sideline cheering.

That's why we at Vanderbilt announced that we would replace our traditional athletic department with a new body that is more connected to the mission of the university and more accountable to the institution's academic leadership. We'll no longer need an athletic director. We're not eliminating varsity sports, mind you, or relinquishing our membership in the highly competitive Southeastern Conference. Rather, we're making a clear statement that the "student-athlete" -- a term invented decades ago when college sports was faced with another seemingly endless parade of scandals -- belongs back in the university.

Many athletic departments exist as separate, almost semi-autonomous fiefdoms within universities and there is the feeling that the name on the football jersey is little more than a "franchise" for sports fans. As Bill Bowen and Sarah Levin point out in their new book, "Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values," student-athletes are increasingly isolated, even at the best schools in the country. They do not participate in the extracurricular activities that are so important for personal growth. They miss out on opportunities to study abroad or have internships. They spend too much time in special athletic facilities that are off-limits to the rest of the student body. And their world can too often be defined by coaches' insatiable demands for practice and workout sessions.

True, this is the cost of staying competitive in college sports, where tens of millions of dollars are at stake. But should it be? Over the years I have gotten to know thousands of student-athletes. They are as different as any group of individuals could be. What they have in common, though, is a sense that they missed out on an important part of the college experience by focusing only on sports. They also lose out by being stripped of their responsibilities as citizens of the university when we say that "all will be forgiven" as long as their performance on the field is up to snuff.

This must change. At Vanderbilt, that means ensuring that every student, every athlete, is part of a vibrant academic and social community.

Shifting Vanderbilt's athletics program to our division of student life and university affairs is merely a step -- perhaps bold, perhaps quixotic -- in the much-needed reform of intercollegiate athletics. We took this step mindful that Vanderbilt is in an unusual position. It is a highly selective private university with an athletics program untarnished by scandal; our student-athletes graduate at rates that are among the best in the country; and we have loyal, generous supporters who have blessed us with excellent facilities. We can do things here that other universities can't or won't.

I will say this: After our announcement, I received many phone calls from college presidents who said, "You go, Gordon. Walk off the cliff, and if you succeed, we will be right behind."

In recent years, there have been a number of well-meaning and forceful efforts to reform college athletics, but they have not gone far enough. It is time for all those who are concerned about the future of our enterprise to get serious about addressing the crisis of credibility we now face. College presidents, working together, should commit themselves to the following reforms:

First, all students who participate in intercollegiate sports should be required to meet the requirements of a core curriculum. The "permanent jockocracy" has for too long made a mockery of academic standards when it comes to athletes. We need to end sham courses, manufactured majors, degree programs that would embarrass a mail-order diploma mill, and the relentless pressure on faculty members to ease student-athletes through their classes.

Second, colleges should make a binding four-year commitment to students on athletic scholarships. One of the dirty secrets of intercollegiate athletics is that such scholarships are renewed year-to-year. A bad season? Injury? Poor relationship with a coach? Your scholarship can be yanked with very little notice. Rather than cynically offering the promise of academic enrichment, colleges should back up the promise so long as a student remains in good academic standing.

Third, the number of athletic scholarships a school can award should be tied to the graduation rates of its athletes in legitimate academic programs. If a school falls below a threshold graduation rate, it should be penalized by having to relinquish a certain number of scholarships for the next year's entering class. A version of this proposal is part of a reform package now snaking its way through the NCAA.

Fourth, graduation rates should be tied to television and conference revenues. If money is the mother's milk of college athletics, then access to it should be contingent on fulfilling the most basic mission of a university -- educating students.

Finally, college presidents and others need to take a good look at the system we have created for ourselves, in which the professional sports leagues have enjoyed a free feeder system that exploits young people and corrupts otherwise noble institutions. We have maintained the fantasy for far too long that a big-time athletics program is for the students, the alumni and, at public universities, even for the legislators. It is time for us to call it what it is has sadly become: a prep league for the pros, who have taken far more than they have given back. We should demand nothing less than a system in which student-athletes are an integral part of the academic institutions whose names and colors they so proudly wear on game day.

"Success isn't permanent, and failure isn't fatal."
- Mike Ditka
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. Why I Can't Go to CUE

Many of you are probably making your plans to join Lawson at their annual CUE user conference. Unfortunately, I won't be there. Seems I'm not invited.

As your self-appointed Lawson ombudsman, I think it's important for you--Lawson's clients--to understand why I--and presumably other independents--won't be attending CUE this year.

In past years, I've simply registered using my own name, and when asked for my affiliation with Lawson, I've given one of my client's names, and that has been sufficient. This year it's a different story.

I had already registered (Early Bird, no less!) and made my reservations.  I recently received a cancellation message from the folks who handle the registration canceling my registration. When I contacted them, I was told "this is a bit awkward--and we're my stuck in the middle--but we were given a list of names...". Hmmm, that certainly got my attention. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding and Lawson planned to send me press credentials instead? Or, perhaps they wanted me to be the keynote speaker? Any conspiracy theorists out there?

I tried the official Lawson channels, and received the expected response.  Even my escalated messages to Jay Coughlan and Dean Hager didn't help.  The message was clear: "Lawson's policy is to limit attendance to certified business alliances and customers."

Sure, I could probably register using a pseudonym, or find some other way to sneak in, or just lurk around the hotels. But that's not right.

Before you misinterpret this as whining, let me again reiterate that I'm one of Lawson's biggest supporters. As I've explained to numerous people from Lawson, I am independent consultant; my practice is primarily focused on Lawson. Most of my work is done independently, although I also work for or alongside of Lawson and their partners.

While I'm certainly disappointed, I think this is an utter failure on Lawson's part to realize the value of the independent consulting community.  Sure we compete in some ways, but we certainly not out to steal business from Lawson. Believe me, there's plenty of work for all of us. The independents are Lawson's "grass roots" sales force, out there spreading the word about their latest-and-greatest products.

Ideally, I'd like to see an ISV-type program from Lawson (much like the partner/consultant arrangements I have with Microsoft, Oracle and IBM), where we can buy and install limited-use software, purchase training, etc. Our goal as independents is to stay on top of the latest releases from Lawson, and try to stay at least one step ahead of out clients.

But, at least allowing us to go to CUE (we do pay, you know!) would be a decent start.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Continuing Our Lessons from Isabel
It turns out I wasn't the only one who was a bit under prepared for Hurricane Isabel (see http://www.danalytics.com/guru/letter/archive/2003-10.htm). Seems that the Commonwealth of Virginia didn't get ready either. According to a recent article in The Washington Post, "a computer designed to track requests for help from local governments failed repeatedly during Hurricane Isabel, delaying the distribution of ice, water, generators and other assistance."

The cause? "Michael Cline, the director of the state's Department of Emergency Management, told lawmakers at a hearing that the state's 'Action Tracking'  computer system did not have a battery backup."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3. Lawson Thoughts for the New Year

- Whatever happened to "Lawson using Lawson"? When Lawson released version 8.0, they made a public pledge to always be the initial "client" using a new release. The "eating our own dog food" approach. Now with the release of 8.1 applications, Lawson has changed their tune, and is not upgrading themselves first.

- It's not all about the Portal. Sorry to break the news to Lawson, but your portal content is NOT the center of an enterprise's universe. Lawson Portal is just another web user interface for Lawson applications. I have yet to see a client run their corporate intranet using Lawson's Portal. How many of you have tried to offer Lawson content via another portal?

- Environment 8.1, which focuses primarily on security, is a broad and perhaps overly ambitious project. The new "roles, rules, and resources" paradigm is vastly different from current laua security. In general, I love the principles (imagine not having to set up a new security class every time a particular user assumes a new responsibility!) What I'm concerned about is that this is a "Lawson proprietary" technology, and isn't layered on a proven security framework. And being such a huge initiative, it will take a long time to get it right.

- As I often say, Lawson is not a technology company. Lawson's strategy over the past couple of years has been to develop "just enough" of a web technology layer to enable them to deploy compelling (i.e. "saleable") products. The problem is that the IOS layer, and the underlying environment on which they run, is starting to crumble under all that weight. I know Lawson wants to "rule every layer", but it's time to let go. Lawson needs stick to their core competency, which is ERP applications--not technology.

- Once Lawson adopts a real architecture, they can build upon its foundations to offer security, integration, and web services. I was really hoping that we'd see a web services offering from Lawson this year, but since I last wrote about it (http://www.danalytics.com/guru/letter/archive/2003-07.htm), nary a word.

- Lawson needs to adopt a technology/architecture and stick with it. We've moved through ActiveX, JavaScript, Java Beans, XML, and Portal. Want to place bets on a Lawson interface rooted in J2EE or NET?

- Oh yeah, and Lawson needs to publish an annually-updated long-range statement of direction. Clients need to know not only where their Lawson applications are going, but what Lawson is planning for the environment and technology. How many of you invested in ActiveX and now have lots of "legacy" code to support? How about Javascript/HTML Report Designer? Or ReportSmith? And, now Crystal Enterprise?

- And lastly, Lawson needs to stop leaving the AS/400-iSeries customers hanging. The promise of version 8.0 was dangled in front of them for years; now it's "we'll have to make a business case for deciding if 8.1 will be available for you".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"How a journey through leukemia led to software that
changed the way people work."

That's the tagline for a new book, The Cancer Code, by Mike and Bettina Jetter. This past summer, we lost the mother of one of our son's closest friends to leukemia.  In addition, my Grandfather died of leukemia when I was young, which made this book particularly intriguing. If you've ever known anyone who's fought back against a life-threatening disease, you'll be riveted by Mike and Bettina's story.

Find out more at http://www.cancercode.com/.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4. Worthwhile Reading

Targeting Perfection
Six Sigma Comes to IT
CIO Magazine, December 1, 2003
http://www.cio.com/archive/120103/sigma.html

See It Now
New budgeting-and-planning software offers increasingly sophisticated visual aids: dashboards and scorecards.
CFO Magazine, December 2003
http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,11285||M|766,00.html?f=insidecfo

Slippery Slope
A meltdown of the ski-resort operator's payroll system
could not have come at a worse time.
Baseline Magazine, December 1, 2003
http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,3959,1414942,00.asp

5. Reader Feedback
Send your comments to mailto:letter-comments@lawsonguru.com.